CUA guideline on adult overactive bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overactive bladder (OAB) picture has dramatically changed in the last 20 years. A quarter century ago, this symptom complex did not even exist. Bladder hyperactivity and urgency incontinence were separate entities poorly understood and treated only with the first-generation anti-muscarinic medications, propantheline and oxybutynin. Only in early 2000 came the concept of this syndrome made of four intimately linked symptoms that we today call OAB. With this concept, new pharmacological agents were launched. These new agents may have not dramatically improved symptoms in comparison with older agents, but undeniably have a more tolerable side effect profile, leading to better compliance and adherence. Neuromodulation was introduced a few years later, giving hope to the worst OAB cases, but with a limited applicability due to its cost. A real revolution occurred around 2010 with the demonstration of onabotulinumtoxinA’s efficacy in controlling the symptoms of OAB. Several years passed before it proved its place in the treatment algorithm for OAB. It is definitely time for the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) to produce guidelines to help Canadian urologists better integrate a sequence of investigation, diagnosis, and treatment, which has become more complex over the years. To do so, the CUA gave a group of experts, Canadian physicians and nurses, the difficult task of putting together a comprehensive document to guide all interested professionals in the management of this interesting and common syndrome, which has so much impact on our patients’ quality of life. An executive summary of the CUA guideline on OAB is available as an Appendix at www.cuaj.ca.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".